|
various international dirty tricks capabilities that the Neocon cabal set up to foment a large-scale war in the Middle East; he was signaling her that, although he was taking the 'fall' for the widened war, they would get their beloved slaughter anyway, and that she "should come back to work--and life" now to help propagandize it (thus he predicts a conflict over Iran nukes, possibly with dirty tricks aspects to it; and "biological threats" (also the Iraq elections, yet another con job).
Ergo, I wonder about this item on Duelfer. I hadn't realized that he'd visited her in jail. I wonder if he's responsible for the repeated efforts to destroy George Galloway, the British MP antiwar spokesman who dismantled the Republicans in the Senate committee hearing.
You know, it's fascinating the way the corporate newsstream picks away at your consciousness if you aren't fully paying attention to a story, but just grab little bits of it. I noticed this with Venezuela and Chavez--that the corporate newsstream was successfully planting little doubts in my mind about Chavez, his elections and his intentions--and so, in that case, I decided to pay FULL attention to it. I sought out lots of alternative sources of information; I read the corporate newsstream carefully--and informed myself well on the subject. And I now understand that those little shadows, little concerns, that were being planted in my brain were utter crap. And I mean absolute, total and complete crap. The way they always start off descriptions of Chavez with "increasingly authoritarian," according to "his critics" (never named; no evidence given). The way they manage to paint him as some sort of extremist, as some sort of a danger to us or to democracy--although they never say how or why.
The facts about Chavez are the exact opposite of everything the corporate news monopolies are, in this shadowy and deceptive way, implying.
It's just mind-boggling. I think it was the Chavez stories that finally convinced me that NOT ONE WORD IS TO BE TRUSTED from a corporate news monopoly source. Not one word! I mean that.
So, now I'm wondering about the current Galloway stories (--he is accused of accepting oil profits from Saddam). Is one word of it true? I'm thinking--as with every other smear of Galloway, which he has beaten back and completely defeated each time the Blairite corporatists have tried this crap on him--will this, too, be proved completely groundless, but with the damage to his reputation already accomplished, and THAT was the point--to sneak those little shadows into the newsstream, because so few people bother to fully investigate them?
If Duelfer is involved with Judith Miller, what I would suspect is that, a) evidence was manufactured against Galloway; and b) possibly also in other oil-for-food program cases (to smear the UN, or other opponents of the Iraq war).
It's one of those stories--the UN story--that I haven't had much time for--given everything else that's going on in the world, and, given the Bush junta's hatred for the UN, and the junta's own humongous thievery, and the corporate news monopolies' shilling for the junta and covering up its crimes, why should I focus on minor corruption?
Here are some good rules of thumb that might help in dealing with the sheer volume of the newsstream: 1. Assume that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies are telling lies of some kind, whatever they print or promote--and just dismiss any and all allegations against antiwar figures or leftists as manufactured crap (unless you have time to investigate). 2. Assume that whoever they are slurring is probably doing some good--that's WHY they are being slurred (whoever is actually manufacturing the 'evidence', or 'framing' the story for the lapdog press). 3. Assume at least a neutral stance on the so-called enemies of the U.S., or at the least, re: such enemies, that the story about them may be horribly distorted, or false by means of omission (as stories about Iraqi rebels, and Al Qeda, often are), or just outright made up gov't propaganda.
On the latter (#3) I don't mean, ignore possible threats or problems, and be unrealistic about them--just to be very skeptical of both facts and framing in these news sources.
We cannot trust U.S. corporate news sources any more, not even a little bit. They are creating a world of pervasive lying and illusions. And we really have to get that through our heads, so that the devious ways that they penetrate our consciousness--sideways, subtly, by our lack of full attention--will not be so successful.
|